Ah, that wonderful second amendment who makes police's work so thrilling, exciting, a deadly fun !Ah, the joy of living in a country where each loonie has the damn right to "protect" himself with as much and different guns he wants.Ah, the wonderful sensation of insecurity each time you step outside !

I rest my case... till next shooting !See ya !

Dude, of course it's horrible whenever an event like this happens. And I'm glad MTF and his family weren't harmed.

But he's a little piece of reality for you: annually, MANY more people die from alcohol (80,000+) and tobacco (400,000+) than guns (10,000-12,000 - and most of which are gang related) in the US...

tiboudre wrote:

Disco Boy wrote:

(especially since I don't believe the Fed is fully controlled by the US Government).

Irony, buddy, it's irony !For some, trying to make sense is no use here !

I understand your point completely. It's easy to understand. But what about the rest of my post?

My point was that this stuff is going to continue to get worse in our lifetime because we ignore the real problem. The real problem is human misery. So, I'm not going to add to it. I am going to try to alleviate it when I can. That's all I can do. I'm not going to debate insane people on a Zappa forum. More laws are not going to save us. These people who make all of these laws are often perpetrators of the misery. Don't put it in their hands.

I think we, as a nation, are not going to get away with many things that we thought we already got away with. Such as constantly lying to our children. Or how we obtained this land. Or Bon Jovi.

Note: this shooting happened within 100 feet of my house. I was at a nearby grocery store when it happened, and I heard the hail of gunfire when officers shot the suspect. My wife and I were not allowed to return to our home until eight hours later...

yowza, heavy stuff goin down in the 'hood, glad to hear you're back safe in the homestead; didja remembered to take the extra clip before you left the house ¿

Common folks just want to be happy, live in peace, security and have a fullfilling life. For one thing, they certainly don't want to get killed when doing their shoppings. I, for one, wouldn't want.I don't give a shit about any piece of paper written in ancient times that permits any loonies to get an AK47 now. We won't cure madness. Just forget it. But, for heaven's sake, we should take all means we have to not let the mad man get a gun, even more when we can't be sure who is the mad man today, or who that mad man will be tomorrow. A bit like we don't like the idea of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad getting nuclear weapons. Ironic, isn't it ? It all adds up to one thing: "Dangerous killing machines in the wrong hands".

It would be fun to talk about Québec and Canada, but who cares here ?You want to hear about Harper ?You want to hear about riots in Montreal ?You want to hear about "Comission Charbonneau" ?You want to hear about PQ ?You want to hear about Justin Trudeau ?Humm ?...

No money, no power, just a regular guy trying to make ends meet. Yeah, I'm like the vast majority, a common folk.Nothing to be ashamed of.

Some people worry about too many laws. But, momentarily suspending any thought of who advantages most from the current law system, what is a law? It's basically a social agreement. If life gets complicated then you're going to need many such agreements. Without an overarching government, how are you going to have a law system with any teeth? And we're back onto whether handing over the running of society to the captains of industry is a good idea or not.

I was watching the news the other night and in particular an item about the government considering legislation to limit club and pub opening hours and in particular regulating the service of alcoholic drinks in clubs and pubs. This is in response to a combination of the police and the medical fraternity expressing concern over the overwhelming problem of alcohol related health problems, injuries and crime. Both are organisations made possible by modern government.

Limited forms of this legislation have been trialled in certain social areas and significant downturns in various negative statistics were observed. Being interviewed were representatives of government, the hotels and liquor sales association, medical authorities, the police and families whose lives have been ruined by alcohol related violence. If you live in the real world you can't fail to see there are conflicts of interest in that group. The hotels guy was seriously trying to say that alcohol was not a problem, that it was only when drugs became involved that things got out of hand. When asked for evidence, he was only able to say that it was obvious and could only base himself on his own observations of people who take drugs after consuming alcohol "It's in their eyes ...". On the other hand, the hospitals, police and government were each able to quote from volumes of accumulated scientific research based on actual life experiences that show that alcohol causes the majority of the harm without the involvement of drugs.

The alcohol guy tried to say that the only reason the trials were in favour of the government's position is because the people who were limited by it went elsewhere and the trouble was just displaced. Again, he clearly demonstrated that he had no real evidence of this fact, whereas the people that had carried out the trials weren't stupid and realised from the start that it would be necessary to gather actual evidence, which turned out to show that the majority of people did not change their favoured social haunts and that the trials really did demonstrate the benefits of such regulation.

I'm sorry, but there is no way I'm handing over the reins of society to people like that hotels guy, who's main concern is the welfare of shareholders in the liquor peddling business. Now, where is that social consequences discussion going to take place, with what resources and who is going to coordinate and pay for research, like the above, when we abandon government altogether? The clouds is where and the cuckoo up there is who.

There will be no social law, only the rule of law as determined by the captains of industry. History, and in particular Feudalism, has already more than adequately shown us the futility of that way of doing business. Every time I turn on the news there's some guy representing that class spouting some virulent bullshit and the sheeples keep on believing it. We're going to hell in a picnic basket folks.

_________________The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

The problem with "laws" begins with who makes them. In the USA, most people understand that their legislatures are comprised mainly of people who were put there by big money. Yes, the people voted for them, but the campaign funds come mostly from industry, and the choices are very limited between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.

We have so many laws in the USA, that law enforcement has become an industry. The "law enforcement industry" is a player in politics, society, and the economy. A lot of cops, lawyers, guards, and judges would be out of work if they actually got rid of crime...so, they keep the drugs on the street, and make sure alcohol is available, so people will get stupid and go to jail.

The law enforcement industry has recently become very militarized, due mostly to the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted after the phony 9/11/2001 "attack" by crazed Muslims that hate us for our freedoms".

This is how dictatorships and police states get started. Ask Hitler. It's no wonder that so many Americans fear losing their firearms, because when guns are banned, only cops will have guns...and criminals.

MTF that was too close for comfort, I am glad the hand of fate guided you from danger...did you know the guy?

I didn't know him, but I think I may have met him. About three weeks ago there was a suspicious-looking guy walking down our street (it's a dead-end street, and doesn't get much traffic: so anyone who doesn't belong there stands out like a sore thumb). He noticed me looking at him, and started a conversation with me. He introduced himself (I forgot his name) and gave me a plausible-yet-a-bit-too-detailed explanation of why he was there. He left and I haven't seen him since. It just suddenly occurred to me today that he might have been THE GUY.

I had definitely met one of the officers. She had been a patrol cop in our neighborhood.

This picture shows the actual spot where the officers were killed. This is not the address that was given in news reports, so not many people know this was the place. The memorial downtown at the Police Department is much bigger.

At no time have I claimed that the current situation is even bordering on fair, but I'm weary of the nuts who insist that by handing it all over to the captains of industry, all our problems will be solved. They are very powerful and hence their influence on our current legal system is paramount, but laissez faire is the wrong direction altogether.

How did FZ put it? Something about pushing it too far and revealing the brick wall at the back of the theatre. He might have been petit capitalist but he had no illusions about the true masters of America.

_________________The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

The problem with "laws" begins with who makes them. In the USA, most people understand that their legislatures are comprised mainly of people who were put there by big money. Yes, the people voted for them, but the campaign funds come mostly from industry, and the choices are very limited between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.

We have so many laws in the USA, that law enforcement has become an industry. The "law enforcement industry" is a player in politics, society, and the economy. A lot of cops, lawyers, guards, and judges would be out of work if they actually got rid of crime...so, they keep the drugs on the street, and make sure alcohol is available, so people will get stupid and go to jail.

The law enforcement industry has recently become very militarized, due mostly to the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted after the phony 9/11/2001 "attack" by crazed Muslims that hate us for our freedoms".

This is how dictatorships and police states get started. Ask Hitler. It's no wonder that so many Americans fear losing their firearms, because when guns are banned, only cops will have guns...and criminals.

Negro men got the right to vote in the USA with the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. All other laws enacted or reenacted since are supplemental.

Another excellent post.

On slightly different topic...

We can only hope polydigm and many others will stop ignoring the obvious FACT that Capitalism is absolutely necessary for economic systems to flourish and without it, those said systems fall to pieces immediately. They should also study economies that have successfully utilized free market principles which have contributed to some of THE largest economic booms in history (the Industrial Revolution, Roaring Twenties, Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid 20s and more recently with Chile), despite admittedly not being perfect systems. If they don't, then because of the particular type of Mixed Economy that the US and many other countries live in, major financial crashes like the Housing Bubble Crisis and the imminent Currency/Treasury Bubble Crisis will perpetually induce every several years. However, it's important to note that in many cases, Mixed Economies can and do work, but only when the mixture is balanced correctly. Even China is no longer a 100% Communism based economy. Ever since they adopted Capitalism principles in 1978 (which they refer to as a "Socialist Market Economy"...LOL), they've had a HUGE economic boom.

Whenever Socialism and/or Communism has been implemented within an economic system, it has FAILED and FAILED HARD. And hence, advocating Socialism and/or Communism as a plausible economic system should be considered utter lunacy.

It's not even remotely debatable that Capitalism is a FAR more superior economic system than Socialism and/or Communism will EVER be...because history PROVES it.

Basically, the bubble burst. Banks printed a lot of money and sold it to governments. This is how it works. They invited everybody into the pool, then drained it.

Capitalism works, but privately held central banks are a problem. In my view, governments should issue their own currency, preferably backed by actual value, such as silver or gold, or even labor. They should not allow private banks to issue money at interest because the debt only gets larger, and the only way to end the debt is to have a nice big war.

As it is in America, we are essentially controlled by the captains of industry. They buy the vast majority of our politicians. Once in a while a humanitarian idea comes along to help the average poor person, but it usually doesn't go anywhere unless big money gets something out of it. To be sure, most of the funds taken from taxes for welfare programs ends up in the hands of large corporations...that is, poor people spend money the same as the better-off do, so Wal-Mart and Shell Oil benefit. Even our new "ObamaCare" health program is a sell out to the insurance companies, who will benefit because everyone by law must now buy insurance. It never would have gotten through Congress without that provision.

As for balls-out capitalism, I don't think it's ever really happened. Capitalism eats the planet, plain and simple, so there has to be some controls...but the controls will always have to benefit big money in some way, because big money rules.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum